Ballots to remain uncounted in MI and Stein blocked in Philly. Guest: Election integrity, law expert Paul Lehto says this proves 'only option is to get it right on Election Night'. Also: Trump taps climate denier, fossil-fuel tool for EPA...

James O'Keefe, the rightwing operative, hero [update: and paid employee of faux journalist Andrew Breitbart] is already being sued and investigated for the illegal secret video taping of employees at ACORN offices in at least two different states. And now, he's been arrested and charged in an apparently botched scheme to bug the office of U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA). One of his three cohorts was the son of Louisiana's acting U.S. Attorney Bill Flanagan.

On January 25, 2010, individuals entered and attempted to gain entrance to the office and telephone system of United States Senator Mary Landrieu, located in the Hale Boggs Federal Building, Room 1005, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 for the purpose of interfering with the office's telephone system. The individuals did so by falsely and fraudulently representing that the [sic] were employees of a telephone company. Witnesses in and around the office identified the individuals as JOSEPH BASEL and ROBERT FLANAGAN. Subsequent investigation determined that JAMES O'KEEFE and STAN DAI aided and abetted FLANAGAN and BASEL in the execution of the plan.

But it's not illegal phone bugging, or even shades of Watergate! It's "journalism", right Mr. Beck? Mr. O'Reilly? Mr. Breitbart?

Reached for comment today, O'Keefe's actual pimp, the wingnut and similarly fake "journalist" Andrew Breitbart --- who recently tweeted out a death threat to The BRAD BLOG --- had, uncharacteristically, little to say. He did, however, go out of his way to try to distance himself from O'Keefe, who he helped make famous, and has long hailed as a hero, by hemming and hawing to TPMmuckracker [emphasis added]: "I need to find information on this. I'm out of the loop on this. I will make my determination then on when to comment."

Update: However, Media Matter reports that Breitbart has previously revealed, on a rightwing radio show, that he pays O'Keefe a "fair salary" for whatever is that O'Keefe does.

While the previous Breitbart/O'Keefe ACORN sting scheme received much publicity from Fox "News" and friends, the highly edited videos apparently revealed no illegalities according to two separate independent reports, other than O'Keefe's apparently illegal secret videotaping. On the other hand, if the Rule of Law still applies in either Louisiana or the U.S. --- even for the son of an Acting U.S. Attorney --- it would appear that O'Keefe, who spent last night in jail and is free on bail today, is likely in big big trouble.

Golly, we hope he doesn't become a convicted felon and lose his right to vote!

The BRAD BLOG has, for years, covered the GOP's continuing attempts to discredit ACORN, for little more than the fact that the community group has registered millions of legal low and middle-income voters to vote across the country. Our coverage of the most recent 2008 push to falsely discredit the group was documented on this special coverage page.

2) Media Matters reports that O'Keefe is actually a paid employee of Breitbart who pays him a "fair salary" according to an admission on a rightwing radio show.

3) Will the 31 House Republicans who cosponsored Pete Olson (R-TX)'s resolution lauding O'Keefe and declaring that he was "owed a debt of gratitude by the people of the United States", after he appeared to have broken the law with his ACORN videos, be co-sponsoring a resolution to condemn him now that it looks as though his is likely to soon be a convicted felon for participating in the attempting wire-tapping of one of their colleagues?

Here are the names of those 31 House Republicans who co-sponsored Olson's resolution if you care to call them to find out:

UPDATE 9:05pm PT: And then there's this, perhaps the most unsurprising news of the day:

Although they repeatedlypromoted ACORN videos made by filmmaker James O'Keefe on their shows and complained about the lack of media coverage of the videos, neither Glenn Beck nor Sean Hannity mentioned O'Keefe's arrest Monday for an alleged plot to wiretap Sen. Mary Landrieu's phone. Fox News has reported on the story, but neither Beck nor Hannity had any comment on it.

UPDATE 1/27/10, 4:26pm PT: Updated reporting describes what had previously been reported as an attempt to bug the phones of Landrieu's office, as a plot to "tamper with phones" instead. Not certain of the distinction, nor why Breitbart seems to feel it's an important one, according to his silly tweetage today, but here are the details at TPM...

It must be mighty embarrassing for those U.S. Congressmen who signed the resolution honoring O'Keefe for his fake ACORN videos! Ha ha ha ha ha! Karma is indeed a b!tch. If any of them were my child, he'd still be in jail. I don't expect Breitbart, Fuchs Noose, or any of the rw radio "entertainers" to have much to say about this incident, except that maybe they haven't really done anything. Forget about the witnesses who saw them at the federal building, forget what is in the affidavit, forget everything except defending them and making endless excuses for their behavior. If the subject comes up on Fuchs Noose, it will immediately devolve into a focus on how corrupt President Obama and the liberals are, and how we are destroying the country. We didn't break into the Watergate building, try to wiretap a republican senator's phone, or blow up a federal building like McVeigh, but it doesn't matter because liberals/progressives are violent and corrupt. I read something that Charles Johnson said in a LA Times article recently, and it has stayed in my mind. He said that he never received from any liberal/progressive the death threats, threats of violence, and hate mail that he has received from the conservatives/republicans since he disagreed with them, even on the very contentious issue of whether GWB was right in invading Iraq. This says a lot about many on the other side of the aisle, not all of them, but quite a few of them.

-These guys entered a Federal building under false pretenses...
-They attempted to tamper with the phone system located in a Federal Building...

I don't know about anyone else...but I'm sure that the above two facts are Homeland Security violations.
Shouldn't these yahoos be headed to Guantanomo for an interminable amount of time and denied any legal representation etc etc...

I mean the alleged "terrorists" we have incarerated at Guantanomo have been accused of much less...

Wow this is so weird. Keith Olberman and Johnathan Turley say the first count alone is worth 10 years. Remember in Federal prison there is no time off for good behavior. Turley also postulates that this is just the first charge.

This is hilarious. I've been in the sky or in airports most of the day. As soon as I got home and saw this on the MSNBC homepage, I flipped right over here, knowing that it would be the headline of the day!

This is such a shock.
Everyone knows that if he'd simply joined a group to undermine the government and bombed buildings or something harmless like that, he'd get a college teaching job and launch liberal presidential campaigns.
Tapping a public servants phone just pales by comparison, doesn't it?

Yes, folks, now that the perennial favorite CHAPPAQUIDDICK has worn out its final reel, we bring to you Chicago Citizen of the year, 1997 and reformed terrorist William Ayers. You thought that story was dead, but you were wrong. Sleep with one eye open. Lock your doors and bolt your windows. Stock up on garlic and silver bullets.

Hear William Ayers make outrageous statements, like -

"The Weather Underground went on to take responsibility for placing several small bombs in empty offices.... We did carry out symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people, were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam war."

SR, it's more like; "Remember when the "conservatives" installed corporate political operatives in every branch of Government and media ownership to run a 24 hour-a-day 7 days-a-week propaganda campaign manipulating the [ignorant segment of the] electorate against progressive causes, moving this cuntree towards Fascism at an alarming rate?"...oh wait...

Thank you, SR, for those figgy theatrics of how deep pathological denial can go, even in the age of the internet and instant fact-checking, when the launch of the world's most important political campaign is compared to sharing a cup of kool-aid.
I mean coffee.
By the way SR, why DID you support Teddy after his drunk driving resulted in a dead woman? I can't wait to see the semantic concoctions on that score.

And I can tell Floridiot spent a lot of time with those sources you mentioned, all of which happen to have a confirmed confluence to the left, as remarkably few seconds on google can show, such as this from the UCLA: "Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate... but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx)
Wow! There goes the juice for THAT conspiracy theory!

It's ok though, Flor. Most folks are aware of it even if you aren't: http://www.mediaresearch...g/flash/2008/Oct2008.pdf
I'm sure you're a smart man when it comes right down to it, you just get carried away in your passionate hatred for those who don't agree with your ideas.

Oh, and congratulations to all the liberals here on BO's support of warrantless wiretapping, more troops in Afghanistan, more trillions in debt, and that Gitmo thingy still gaping open like a broken maw.
What a change.

Then again, it's not as if he'd worked long enough in politics to give a clear idea of what he'd do. Tsk.

1. Ayers-O'Keefe Isn't apples and oranges....it's apples and hamburgers.
2. Your tit for tat playground screed...sounds like "I know you are but what am I ?"
3. Why aren't you appalled that O'Keefe gained access to a Federal building in order to bug an elected official's phone ?
I wonder what the Patriot Act and Homeland security think of those activities ?...yet you'll minimize and defend them.

You can trot out Teddy Kennedy (dead), Bill Ayers (irrelevent) or Obama's continutation of W Bush's illegal policies all you want...

But you sound like a fasict apologist simply seeking to change the topic...

It's hilarious & all & yet Mr. Changehope is about to shoot another cannonball into the side of the U.S.S. Amurruka. We're sunk folks. This dweeb will probly get off light. And we'll be paying for his hots & cot. Where will )+_ be sleeping when our ship of state sinks? Ttfn. Time for a nap.

That strange set of characters was meant to be: YOU. As in: where will YOU be sleeping when the ship sinks? I do remember some other malfeasants who never saw the prison entry way. This little punk ain't nuthin'. We need to take down wall street, the banks, and establish publicly funded elections, hand-counted paper ballots & universal health care for all. THEN they can't control us. Probably too late, realistically, but as my bud Howard Zinn says-there's way more of us than there are of them. Hey-bright idea: change your withholding on your payroll (if u still have a job) and stop lending the state & feds YOUR money. We gotta cut off the supply so they'll start listening to US again. We have all the power-in our dollars. They can't function without it.

Actually, Flo, I'm sick and tired of it, too. I've also had my fill of the piss-poor argumentation in which they believe that alleging a bias is the same as disproving an investigation (or several, as the case may be). And that's to say nothing of the whole "someone else did something bad, so I'm going to ignore what this guy did" mentality, which has never made sense to me.

Then again, I suppose those are the only ones that tell you folks what you want to hear.

Jon, you've apparently lost track of what's going on since you seem to be employing the very behavior you condemn, and no one said anything about disproving the investigation.

And bluehawk, was that blurb supposed to be some sort of rebuttal? Because all it did was highlight the brazen hypocrisy in your own logic:
You start off with an attempt to minimize the momentum of the Ayers fiasco, then tell us what you think of my tone (and, of course, THAT's right on topic and not deflection, isn't it?)

You then go on to ask why I'm not appalled at the attempt to bug a public servants phone without telling us why you aren't appalled that obama was so misguided as to launch his campaign from an impenitent bomber.

As for minimizing or defending okeefe, please show us where I did so.
Because I know you wouldn't dream of intentionally slinging false accusations.
Because everybody knows only fascists do that.

Truth be told, I have to say that bombing buildings and putting lives at risk and joining groups to undermine the government are more terrorist activities than tapping a public servants phone.
I find it amusing that this would have to be pointed out, especially since you're pretty much calling Okeefe a terrorist while rallying around Ayers, who openly & on the record said he wishes he & his gang had bombed more. That they didn't kill anyone doesn't mean they didn't put people in danger of death.

Now, this is not necessarily a defense of Okeefe (although I know it will be seen as one because, after all, this is a liberal blog where readers actually consider media matters a legitimate source of information), but isn't every public servants phone & facilities paid for by taxpayers? If so, then why wouldn't we be privy to what it's used for?

Also, if you want to pretend liberal support for Kennedy and the downplaying of Ayers' role doesn't punctuate a pounding lack of good judgment, you're certainly free to.
But that doesn't mean I have to.
So, tell us why Kennedy's killing doesn't bother liberals but Bush's does? Why does tapping a phone bother you but bombing buildings and wishing to have done more doesn't?

By the way, is SR unable to answer his own questions, or do you think bullying is easier than laying out the basis of your beliefs with facts? Or do you have several accounts to make it look like a bunch of people believe & say the exact same thing?
And why did you post so many short ones instead of compiling them? That would have been much more efficient. I'm just saying.

Oh, and if the presence of trolls is the measure of success of a blog, then you clearly never visit the conservative ones.

On the final note, we actually agree on something:
That obama is continuing bush's illegal policies.
I think the temperature in hell must've dropped

And bluehawk, was that blurb supposed to be some sort of rebuttal? Because all it did was highlight the brazen hypocrisy in your own logic:
You start off with an attempt to minimize the momentum of the Ayers fiasco, then tell us what you think of my tone (and, of course, THAT's right on topic and not deflection, isn't it?)

If this were a topic/article about Bill Ayers then you would be correct Raven...Maybe you should go back and read what the topic/article is about. I didn't see Ayers mentioned...hence you bringing him up is a deflection of the true topic here.

You then go on to ask why I'm not appalled at the attempt to bug a public servants phone without telling us why you aren't appalled that obama was so misguided as to launch his campaign from an impenitent bomber.

Again...Not relevent to the topic at hand...
Topic=O'Keefe and Breitbart, not Obama-Ayers.
But by your apparent politcal allegiance we understand why you want to spin this onto something or someone else.
And pardon me for asking why you would totally ignore an individual gaining access to a Federal building by deception in order to tamper with/bug telephones ? And...
Ayers= 40 years ago
O'Keefe= yesterday
Hell according to you...We should bomb Japan again for Pearl Harbor....

Now, this is not necessarily a defense of Okeefe (although I know it will be seen as one because, after all, this is a liberal blog where readers actually consider media matters a legitimate source of information), but isn't every public servants phone & facilities paid for by taxpayers? If so, then why wouldn't we be privy to what it's used for?

What part of attempted illegal wiretapping do you not understand ?
What part of accessing a Federal building by deception in order to commit a felony do you not quite grasp ?

Also, if you want to pretend liberal support for Kennedy and the downplaying of Ayers' role doesn't punctuate a pounding lack of good judgment, you're certainly free to.
But that doesn't mean I have to.
So, tell us why Kennedy's killing doesn't bother liberals but Bush's does? Why does tapping a phone bother you but bombing buildings and wishing to have done more doesn't?

Kennedy= dead....although I'm sure you would be fine with digging his corpse up and prosecuting him post mortem.
Ayers= Again..irrelevent....I'm starting to sound repetitive...but that's how most learning is accomplished, by rote repetition.

Oh, and if the presence of trolls is the measure of success of a blog, then you clearly never visit the conservative ones.

Admission of your behabior is the first step to healing...
I for one do read conservative sites...I however have no reason to comment on those blogs/sites in order to tit for tat mudsling or twist the topic to one more of my liking. It's a useless exercise that only enflames the divisions in this country and comfort fascists. The fascist-oligharchy loves liberals and conservatives fighting and mudsling each other...it gives them full freedom to rob us blind and constrict our rights while we're distracted.
You seem like a fasict distractor agent...

As far as Ayers goes....I grew up with a guy who became one of the biggest drug lords in Detroit; I guess that would disqualify me for any public office...Because I knew him.

Your few sentences on O'Keefe and your total ignoring Breitbart told me all I need to know about your motivation here at Bradblog.

By the way, is SR unable to answer his own questions, or do you think bullying is easier than laying out the basis of your beliefs with facts? Or do you have several accounts to make it look like a bunch of people believe & say the exact same thing?

Can you point out any question that I asked, other than Did I just witness...?" I looked back over what I wrote, and I didn't find any other question....so - um - where was the bullying that I supposedly perpetrated? I mean, really, if what I wrote can be construed as bullying, I think you'll need to toughen up a little.

But I thought trolls had tough hides. I'm only taking that on other's authority, I do try not to get close to them myself.

ravenhairedmaid @ 20: Poll shows most Americans are aware of liberal media bias? Oh, so now a POLL is proof that the media is biased? WOW! Since when do we POLL people with a question: "Are you aware of liberal media bias?" How about: "When did you stop beating your wife?"

The question is called a "loaded question", and you provide this as PROOF of liberal media bias?

Here, dispute this:

The Myth of the Liberal Media: The Propaganda Model of News - Noam Chomsky

ravenhairedmaid: corporations OWN the media, 5 corporations OWN almost all the media in America. So, are you saying corporations are liberal? There is NO PROOF the media is liberal. It's just people like YOU and Rush Limbaugh and rightwing media SAYING it is, with ZERO proof. It's NOT liberal.

And you link to "mediaresearch" as your proof. Media Research is run by huge rightwinger Brent Bozell:

David Brock, the reformed conservative noise-maker, on how the Right has sabotaged journalism, democracy, and truth.

As a young journalist in the 1990s, David Brock was a key cog the Republican noise machine. Writing for the American Spectator, a conservative magazine funded by billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, Brock gained fame for his attack pieces on Anita Hill and President Bill Clinton. Then, in 2002, Brock came clean. In his memoir, Blinded by the Right, Brock admitted that his work was based on lies and distortion, and part of a coordinated smear campaign funded by wealthy right wing groups to discredit Clinton and confuse the public.

Since then, Brock has continued to expose the conservative media onslaught. In his newest book, The Republican Noise Machine, Brock documents how right-wing groups pressure the media and spread misinformation to the public. It's easy to see how this is done.

Fringe conspiracies and stories will be kept alive by outlets like Rush Limbaugh, the Washington Times, and the Drudge Report, until they finally break into the mainstream media.

Media groups like Brent Bozell's Media Research Center have spent 30 years convincing the public that the media is, in fact, liberal. As Brock says, it's all a sham: "I have seen, and I know firsthand, indeed from my own pen, how the organized Right has sabotaged not only journalism but also democracy and truth."

Blue, I'm sorry about the misapprehension of my motivations, but the topic at hand is actually the hypocritical response of the liberals here to the Okeefe story when you were only too eager to block the Ayers shenanigans from your minds.

I realize you deny this--and with a ubiquitous accusatory tirade, gasp--but that's been determined as the default setting.

May I ask why you resist answering why Ayers bombing things and showing no regret in 2001 (which, I should point out, is a little less than 40 years ago) doesn't bother you, but allegedly tapping a phone does?

What part of "reckless endangerment" don't YOU understand?
What area of "domestic terrorism" are YOU not quite grasping?
.
Let's see if you agree with this statement: If Okeefe was a liberal, it's very likely you'd be here defending &/or excusing him the way you excuse the Wingnut Remorseless Supreme, Bill Ayers.

That Kennedy is now dead doesn't mean you didn't support his deadly, drunken lump in office, which is relevant to the hypocrisy here:
Liberals appear content with Kennedy's killing, and Kerry's, and perhaps anyone else's as long as they're on their side of the ideological fence, but then expect people to believe you're outraged at phone tapping?
You just VOTED for a guy who supports tapping the phones, remember? (Oh, and you might want to take a look at an update article on Okeefe: http://hotair.com/archiv...t-a-case-of-wiretapping/)

So, why would you expect conservatives to be outraged at alleged phone taps when you're not outraged at certified remorseless bombings?

By the way, did you socialize and launch your political campaign from your childhood friend's home? Did you collaborate on funding with him and did he help get you a seat on a school reform board?
No?

This O'Keefe issue is HERE and NOW, and nobody on this blog excused, condoned, or otherwise approved or supported what happened with Kennedy or Ayers. What they did socially or politically since then, that may be a different story, and it could be well argued that both of them atoned for their sins.

You are making a straw man argument of hypocrisy to yourself condone the current criminal actions of this man O'Keefe. Fairly hypocritical of YOU wouldn't you say.

Let me get this straight:
Dan is trying to rebuff media matters as a liberal propaganda site by posting a charge made by another liberal propaganda site that the MRC is a conservative propaganda site.
Which part of that are you thinking is persuasive, Dan?

And Dan wants us all to hail Noam Chomsky as the Ultimate Authority on media bias, despite the fact that even wikipedia cites several sources refuting his claims. Since I know you can't be bothered to seek beyond what the Soros-fundies feed you, here it is:
"A poll of likely 2008 United States presidential election voters released on March 14, 2007 by Zogby International reports that 83 percent of those surveyed believe that there is a bias in the media, with 64 percent of respondents of the opinion that this bias favors liberals and 28 percent of respondents believing that this bias is conservative.[59] In August 2008 the Washington Post ombudsman wrote that the Post had published almost three times as many page 1 stories about Barack Obama than it had about John McCain since Obama won the Democratic party nomination that June.[60] In September 2008 a Rasmussen poll found that 68 percent of voters believe that "most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win." Forty-nine (49) percent of respondents stated that the reporters are helping Barack Obama to get elected, while only 14 percent said the same regarding John McCain. A further 51 percent said that the press was actively "trying to hurt" Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin with negative coverage.[61] In October 2008, The Washington Post media correspondent Howard Kurtz reported that Sarah Palin was again on the cover of Newsweek, "but with the most biased campaign headline I've ever seen."[62]

After the election was over, the Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell reviewed the Post's coverage and concluded that it was tilted in favor of Obama.[63]"

And Dan now takes issues with POLLS.
Dan, did you dismiss polls when obama was ahead of mccain in them?
Just wondering.

Oh please. There's been nothing but claims that Ayers has reformed (prove it), denial that he is relevant, and incorrect statements regarding timeline and connections to obama.

Have you seen anyone remotely suggesting that bombing buildings, trying to undermine the government, and risking the lives and limbs of innocent people?
No.
Yet these same people appear ready to burn Okeefe in effigy for an alleged wiretap.

By the way, would you please point out for us where I've condoned Okeefe's alleged actions?
I know you wouldn't want to intentionally disparage.

Beg pardon, that sentence should have read "Have you seen anyone remotely suggesting that bombing buildings, trying to undermine the government, and risking the lives and limbs of innocent people WAS WRONG."

RHM (I feel that we have acheived a level of familiarity, we are at least acquaintances now on some level, but if anyone in the future tries to tie you to me, either in word or deed, be assured that I will assist you in plausibly denying everything)

From #15

Tapping a public servants phone just pales by comparison, doesn't it?

Perhaps I'm taking a very liberal definition (been known to happen) of the word 'tacit', but I assumed that your statement was tacit approval of O'Keefe's actions, at very least in the sense that "nothing happened to Ayers so nothing should happen to O'Keefe."

You have to admit, if there's a line there, it's very fine.

And my statements about Ayers or Kennedy are certainly not approval, they are simply that the situations are past. Way past.

How about, let's compare Ted Kennedy to Bush. You squawk about ONE person dying at Chappaquiddick. How about the MILLION Iraqi civilians killed in Iraq because of Bush's war of lies? Any comments on that?

With Ayers, who was saying there was no outrage at Ayers' bombings? That happened a long long time ago, like Chapaquiddick. So, you have to bring up things from long ago for your comparisions, instead of RIGHT NOW what O'Keefe did and the Iraq War?

If Brad Blog was around long long ago when Ayers was bombing things, maybe Brad Blog would've shown outrage. You're saying we should show outrage RIGHT NOW about Ayers in some crazy comparison to what O'Keefe is doing NOW. That's called distraction and you aren't addressing O'Keefe. You're defending O'Keefe by bringing up things for comparison from decades ago. Sounds like you have no defense to me.

What Democratic operative is bugging phones RIGHT NOW? None. You have a weak argument having to bring up Bill Ayers as a distraction. Anyone can do that, bring up something from the past as a distraction/comparison instead of addressing the issue. The issue isn't, as you're trying to make it, comparing Bill Ayers to James O'Keefe. You MADE IT the issue so you don't have to directly address O'Keefe (and Breitbart).

RHM: did you think George W. Bush was a great president? I'm just wondering. Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh? He and his rightwing media are the ones who brought up Bill Ayers in the first place during the presidential campaign. No one ever heard of Bill Ayers. They dug it up as fodder for the presidential campaign. No one would know who he is right now otherwise.

You bringing up Bill Ayers (and Chappaquiddick) tells me you listen to Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, FOX "news", and you liked George W. Bush and you're a Republican. Good guess?

She has achieved her objective...she's hijacked the topic thread and made it unrecognizable from it's original.

She could care less about her spurious argument about Ayers or Kennedy...She has achieved her aim of distracting and deflecting from the matter at hand.
She's not a righting nut...she's a rightwing operative who could care less about truth. She simply wants to do the work the job her fascist bosses assigned to her...troll bradblog.

Jon in Iowa @38 said it well..we have a professional troll here in RHM. Watch and learn.

I'm sure you know the singsong about assumptions, so I won't reiterate it.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but my point is not approval or defense of Okeefe--and, by the way, let's remember that the allegation of phone tapping at this point are just that: Allegations. And yes, I would say the same if it was a liberal democrat--but that bombing buildings (something concretely proven and not alleged in this case) seems to have been given a free pass by liberals who are now up in arms about alleged wiretapping of phones.

And while I sincerely do appreciate the effort you took to post a link, I confess I saw no burning effigies in the picture the link took me to. You know, like this, and here (scroll down on that one).

Know why there weren't any burning effigies in that picture? Click Here.

Why have you assumed that I condone Bush's actions in Iraq?
Which brings us back to you: Why would you--or any liberals--support Kennedy after his actions?
"It was a long time ago" seems to be good enough for you to excuse any behavior as long as it's committed by a liberal. Do you think you would have such an attitude if it wasn't? If not, how do you justify having a double standard?

Why are you concluding that the allegations against Okeefe are true? That hasn't been proven yet.

Who's saying there's no outrage over the Ayers bombings? Ok, then where is it? Show me some. I'd LOVE to see some liberal outrage at the flamboyant immorality in their own midst instead of acting like it's all in the other guy's camp.

And don't take this the wrong way, but I don't believe you have enough security clearance to make a call on what the Democratic operatives are or are not doing. There must be SOME reason obama supports wiretapping, right?

Again, I brought up Ayers not as a distraction, but to highlight what appears to be a blog soaking in hypocrisy.
I googled bradblog and Ayers, not once did I find condemnation of his actions among liberal posts. The comparison is not between Ayers and Okeefe, but the liberal response to each.

Dan, YOU know who Ayers is. Does that mean you listen to Rush, OReilly, Fox, etc? I work 3rd shift, so my schedule doesn't really theirs. You pay for cable? Wow. I always wonder who has that much time to watch television?
But I can actually figure out that politicians are crooks, and not to hand over any more of my money and rights to them no matter how necessary they try to make it seem all by myself. Seems fairly obvious.

Do you really think that launching the presidential campaign from Ayers house--after a 20 year acquaintance with him, working with him to decide which anti-American education groups to fund, and after Ayers helped get a job on a school reform board on which they served for 3 years--is insignificant?
Why?

I also strongly suggest you google "Bill Ayers" and "25 million Americans" and see what comes up.

And here I thought it was the TROLLS who did the pointless namecalling. Guess I hit a nerve.

Surely you don't seek to censor anyone who has a thought or idea unsanctioned by you? Because everyone knows only fascists do that.

Have you ever heard of "groupthink", Blue? Here's wiki's definition:

"Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group.[1] During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance."

Gosh, looks like something to be avoided, doesn't it? It also looks like there's a strong case of it here.

Did you know that groupthink is thought to be what led to the Iraq WMD assessment, which--as you know--was probably the greatest tangible factor for invading Iraq?

"Now I can finally say
That I'm afraid that you've become
Everything that you had hated ..."

Look back to my comments here lady....
I called no one names; I did however call you what you actually are; a troll. That's not an epithet, it's a description.

You took the time to wiki the term "groupthink"
that's cute...

The title of this article and topic thread is...

By Brad Friedman on 1/26/2010 2:27PM
BUSTED: It's Hard Out Here For a (Fake) Rightwing Pimp and Phone Tapper
Breitbart's anti-ACORN activist/videographer arrested with U.S. Attorney's son, two others, attempting to bug U.S. Senator's office...

And you come here to make a conversation about...who ?
Bill Ayers
Seems you got corraled into GOP/Tea party/RightWing groupthink and can't find your way out.

If you had come here with some defense of O'Keefe and Breitbart it would at least be on topic and reasonable for the topic at hand.
But you came to change the focus to Ayers and Ted Kennedy. Hence my troll description for you...

Wiki definition of a troll

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topicmessages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]

As his hand-groomed protégé, undercover ACORN video auteur James O'Keefe, sat in a Louisiana police station under arrest for attempting to tamper with a U.S. senator's telephone system, Breitbart's media empire went into lockdown, issuing only a terse statement denying any knowledge of O'Keefe's activities. This morning, however, Breitbart broke the silence, posting a missive to BigGovernment.com announcing that he, Andrew Breitbart, was going to "[w]ait until the facts are in" before "jumping to conclusions" like Media Matters and everyone else in the media.

Imagine that --- Andrew Breitbart chastising the world for passing judgment before the facts are in.

Sort of like when Breitbart used O'Keefe's deceptively edited videos to issue broad condemnations of ACORN's willingness to aid in child prostitution, even though later investigations found that ACORN had done nothing to violate the law or eligibility for federal funding.

Or like when BigGovernment.com attacked the White House for playing host to ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis, only to find out later that it was a different Bertha Lewis.

Or like when Breitbart worked with a private detective who rooted through ACORN's trash, and then told the world that ACORN had conducted a "document dump" in advance of an investigation, even though the "documents" turned out to be mainly fliers and old newsletters.

RHM says: don't talk about O'Keefe's breaking the law...because Bill Ayers was a "terrorist", or James O'Keefe's criminal acts shouldn't be talked about because Bill Ayers is a "terrorist" and his criminal acts were worse, or...actually, what IS your point of continually talking about Bill Ayers in reference to James O'Keefe?

Or are you saying that James O'Keefe is just as bad as Bill Ayers?

Or are you saying that Bill Ayers is WORSE...so you can't talk about James O'Keefe?

I'm sure you know the singsong about assumptions, so I won't reiterate it.

You just did. And I anticipated it. It was not an unreasonable assumption on my part.

bombing buildings (something concretely proven and not alleged in this case) seems to have been given a free pass by liberals

Which liberals gave him a free pass? Not me. Fail.

The fact that the TeaBaggers ended up not burning Pelosi in effigy due to some backlash matters not. They fully admit their intent to have done so, and thought it was a good idea, and bemoan the fact that the public had not understood their purpose in the burning.

Personally, I don't care who is burned in effigy. It's symbolic, and no I don't think it's a de facto course to actual violence. I've got no problem with burning Bush and Cheney in effigy. You used the term "burning in effigy" to refer to some liberal design on O'Keefe. An exaggeration to say the least. That's the only reason I linked the article.

Sorry, I know you missed me but, you know, it was the weekend and all.

What a great job you're doing of ignoring me, blue. I think I hear Alannis Morrissette is humming something ...

I'm sorry, but let's review recent events:
I posted an excerpt from wiki.
Then you posted an excerpt from wiki.
I don't know which direction you think the mirror is pointed in, my friend, but I DO know imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

And I see that Soros-funded propaganda sites are still your modus operandi, but speaking "passing judgment before the facts are in," here are some links to the retractions issued concerning this story from CBS, The Washington Post, and even the government (since it can probably be safely assumed that you won't get them from media matters)http://patterico.com/201...ust-one-er-two-problems/

Dan,
Your claim that WaPo is a right-wing rag is blown to shreds since they just issued two--see links above & count 'em, two--corrections on the Okeefe story.
I don't know if you've noticed, but I've made it clear that even risking human safety is detestable, so how you've managed to warp that into inferred support for Bush's war is beyond me. Also, what part of "I work third shift" should I explain further? Are Rush, O'Reilly etc. on in the middle of the night? Please, connect the dots yourself. I'm sure you're capable, you've just become too dependent on 'progressive' sites claiming to do it for you. (By the way, do you not see the hypocrisy of accusing me of listening to Rush, etc. while you subscribe to thinkprogress? Just wondering.)

Dan & SR,
For the 3rd, 4th or 5th time--frankly, I've lost count by now--I will restate that my point is the hypocrisy (at least, the appearance of hypocrisy) of the liberals as far as their willingness to let Ayers slide while they vilify Okeefe. And once again I will state that I googled bradblog and found no liberals remarks condemning Ayers at all, while there are plenty to be had of Okeefe, which gives the impression that morally bankrupt behavior is accepted by liberals as long as they're committed by fellow lefties.

And SR, I anticipated you saying burning effigies doesn't matter to you after you linked to an article that did not support what you were saying. However, I appreciate the gist and that you don't get hung up on that stuff. Every group has its fringe elements that can't be easily ousted.

Dan,
Your claim that WaPo is a right-wing rag is blown to shreds since they just issued two--see links above & count 'em, two--corrections on the Okeefe story.

Good point. Right-wing rags don't issue corrections, no matter how wrong they get the story.

Still, if you're not familiar with the right-leaning bias now, sadly, at the once-great WaPo then you're either simply not paying attention, or you spend too much time reading con-man sites like Breitbart's and watching phony news like at Fox. Your loss. Ours too, since we have to live in the same country with so many of you who have been played for complete dupes.

Since I don't have crayons or finger puppets handy, you'll have to try to follow along as best you can:

Your claim:
"Right-wing rags don't issue corrections"

Then the contradiction:
"[I]f you're not familiar with the right-leaning bias now, sadly, at the once-great WaPo then you're either simply not paying attention."

Um, which is it?
I'm sure the answer is in there somewhere, because you wouldn't stoop to being a liar, right?

By the way, please take a gander at this and see if it doesn't qualify as a correction over at Fox News:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_pscalq-5c
I thought I'd better tell you about it, or you'd continue to pass along incorrect information to your readers.

As for "we have to live in the same country with so many of you who have being played for complete dupes,"
how many campaign promises has obama broken by now?
Is Gitmo closed?Isn't the last Bush deficit almost quadrupled by now?
What Iraq policies have been displaced?
How many troops are now in Afghanistan?

So, basically, everything's the same, except now staggeringly more expensive and with several future generations mired in debt?